<Back to Article

  1. Never have so many been fooled by so few.
    I could think of a couple of people,one in particular that should receive the order of snake oil salesman award.
    I notice they have quietly and unceremoniously made it illegal to bring any fox skins,carcasses for taxidermy or any fox products into Tasmania with out a special permit.
    Now who could be bringing in all those scats?
    Or could there be a problem at the other end?
    Cui Bono?

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  23/04/09  at  04:57 PM
  2. David, your argument is among the most confused and unconvincing attempts I have seen you make on this question. 

    Firstly the map that you link to shows by my count 38 fox-positive scats in total, and of these 28 occur as part of multiple findings credited to the same location as at least one other scat.  On that basis the probability of finding fox scats does appear to increase near to one that has been found, exactly as you suggest it should (although this could also be a result of disproportion in search effort; that isn’t indicated).  Although these clusters are indicated as the same location, we don’t know exactly how loose or tight they are.

    Even if I accept your (unsubstantiated) claim that foxes present in relatively low numbers would not spread out thinly over the island, you would be well aware that a multiple release point hypothesis has been present in the debate for some time - and even if a specific claimed multiple release event turns out not to have occurred, that hardly rules out the possibility in general.  But in any case, what is your evidence that foxes would not spread out?

    The eight DNA genotyped scats are a subset of the fox-positive scats and are specifically those for which sufficient genotype information was available to distinguish an individual fox. According to the reporting this information could not be determined in the majority of cases.  The eight DNA genotyped scats are indeed spread wide but this is not surprising given the small number of individually confirmed scats - clustering in a sample size of eight is not reliable (and if present could be statistically meaningless anyway).  And in any case this is an example of post hoc objection - whatever pattern was produced, those inclined to do so could always have found some way to say it looks odd.  It is also not surprising that the eight that could be tested were from eight different foxes given the distances between those eight. 

    As for the Burnie scat cluster I don’t see why you find that odd at all.  This is an area where there is a verified case of one fox escaping and the obvious potential for others to have done so undetected.  It may also (I don’t know) have been an area receiving disproportionate search effort.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  23/04/09  at  10:02 PM
  3. Wow, skimming through this issue, you two blokes have been banging on about this without naming names or giving a shred evidence of what you are implying. I can see why journos are not picking it up.

      Your innuendo that public officials and scientists are are out planting fox poos is extrmely bizzare.

    People making the career choice to protect or study wildlife make those choices because they are passionate about the subject not the job security. I am married to an environmentalist and frankly resent your insinuations as all the many folk I know in this field are very commited and genuine.

    Put your highly unlikely conspiracy theory against the implications if you are wrong. What if by some weird political twist of fate you manage to disrupt the efforts of those trying to contol or rid Tasmania of foxes? If you are wrong,  won’t you have the blood of extinct species on your hands? Congratulations, entire species lost in an extinction scenario the like not seen on the planet this century!

    How much do you really know about foxes compared to the experts. What are your credentials on this?
    Didn’t they get the top man in the world in foxes in on this, Prof Steven Harris ( a brit. )?

    Do you have a shred of evidence that justifies stopping fox baiting given what’s at stake? Are you doubting there are foxes and do you have an alternative positive suggestion on the matter?

    Come on gentleman, we need articulate people to be helping the world not fueling very weird conspiracy theories.

    Posted by Theresa Herd  on  23/04/09  at  10:44 PM
  4. Well here is a couple of new names # 3 and #4.
    Firstly Theresa I have always named names and will continue to do so.
    Where did we say public officials and scientists are planting fox scat?
    Any person with the slightest bit of environmental knowledge would know what we are being asked to accept is nonsense.
    As for journos not picking this up that is laughable,there has been more written about the wierdness of the Tasmanian fox saga in the last ten years than any other topic I can think of!

    With out going on Theresa I would like to challenge you to a public debate,anywhere,any time.

    Karl where have I named the Tasmanian Labor Government? Secondly it is beyond them,the minister is not exactly a Rhodes scholar.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  24/04/09  at  09:11 AM
  5. Without all the rhetoric, the bottom line is the fox folk have not and can not produce a single fox of their own.
    If there are foxes here as you people claim, then you are incompetent and dismal failures.
    Get rid of the lot, give it to the farmers and hunters and you will soon see if there can be results obtained.
    The fox reward has proven the result will be the same.
    Re the gravy train; as our Prime Minister said “all good things must come to an end”

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  24/04/09  at  09:36 AM
  6. Incidentally Theresa I tried to contact you direct at email address .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
    but the mail administrator bounced it as not an existing email address.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  24/04/09  at  09:41 AM
  7. I have looked back at one other thread of yours which disolved into bitchslapping and am a busy mum without a lot of time for this stuff but I love wildlife so let me know what you are alleging. Who are planting the poos and why? I am new into this and am Sydney based, unfortunately been to Tassie but hear it is awash with unique small the mailand from foxes.

    My understanding is they aren’t trying to catch the foxes just kill them and if it is a small number in a large area I would think no bodies is not a surprise.  Anyway, Mr gRist may have a closed door mindset that would throw doubt over anything cauught in a trap.  Why , just because there have been no foxes recently only poos. Niether you or david have answered my question about what if you are wrong. All those furry small things that must be so important to Tassie’s tourist future and economic health . I would think that if the number of qualified peopel involved say there are foxes then there are probably foxes. Surely it makes sense to insure the precious marsupials from the fox. What are your credentials on this? I am no scientist but I have a brain . Convince me . I’ll read one more reply before writing you off as nutters and not give you any more oxygen unless you can make a sensible case.

    .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by Theresa  on  24/04/09  at  12:53 PM
  8. The good dr B. is jesting with you David,he knows there isn’t any truth in the multiple release theory.
    At his request I sent him the Police FOI,he should stick to OzChess and Politics…something he does know a little bit about.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  24/04/09  at  02:19 PM
  9. Dr Obendorf. I thank you for providing link to the map and I hope you will forgive this criticism. Firstly,scats are not all over the place but are adjacent to roads, open accessable areas, etc. Secondly, there is nothing bizarre in finding anywhere,(if there are foxes in Tasmania?)
    Outside the breeding season foxes call home exactly where they are at that moment in time.
    Thirdly, Foxes are going to disperse as far and and fast as they can from any release point. They would be just as happy up on the inaccessable places where there are no roads as in urban areas.
    When foxes were introduced to Australia they would be petted by the sailors and perfectly tame after the long voyage. they would have be penned,paired up and fed regularly for a few weeks before the door was left open and tasty food placed outside nightly until the foxes did not return. Foxes coming to Tasmania if introduced would be caught up, ferried over and released and their first consideration would to get as far away as fast as possible from that point. Clusters of foxes in the Boat Harbour to Burnie area were silent during the 2008 breeding season. In addition to FCA members listening all who purchased ammunition in Burnie had a CD with fox calls offered. Every Police station from Launceston to Smithton and down to Queenstown had CD’s. No mating foxes reported. Dr Bonham could you please explain the purpose of scat collecting and how it helps in controlling foxes when one fox deposits 2200 scats per annum and be 50kl away 24 hours later.
    J A Stevenson. Fox Control Association

    Posted by J A Stevenson  on  24/04/09  at  03:44 PM
  10. We are not wrong and you have not answered my debate question. Also as a concerned conservationist what is your position on the feral cat issue?
    I also love wildlife,spent a lifetime completely fascinated with wildlife, that is why I regard this 1080 fox? baiting campaign as such a tragedy.
    So you are prepared to endorse the poisoning of devils,quolls,bettongs,possums,antechinus etc with hundreds of thousands of 1080 baits scattered all over Tasmania just in case there may be a fox here. It is pretty obvious who the nutters are I think.
    Incidentally post # 3 this morning was .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  Has it grown a capitol T and a number 0 today? If in doubt anyone click on the email address at the end of post #3 this thread.
    Methinks we have another smokey.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  24/04/09  at  06:32 PM
  11. Ian (#9), yes I have seen the stuff you sent me and was well aware of it when making the above comment but that’s not my point.  There is a difference between that particular multiple release claim and the view that multiple release could have occurred, but not necessarily in the way claimed way back in 2001.

    Not really sure what to make of #10 but obviously the purpose of scat collection is monitoring - confirming what areas of the state foxes are in and have reached (and possibly whether they are becoming commoner); whether they are in those areas at any particular moment or not hardly renders that information irrelevant.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  24/04/09  at  07:02 PM
  12. I am not a wildlife expert but have heard that if there were any Thylacines in Tasmania there would need to be at least 200 of them to have a sufficient gene pool to ensure their survival.
    If there is any truth in this then one would think that there would need to be a similar number of foxes or they would just die out due to in breeding. I would like to hear some intelligent comments on what the minimum number of foxes are for a population to flourish here?

    Posted by Pete Godfrey  on  24/04/09  at  08:14 PM
  13. Theresa comment number 3 - are you in any way connected to 2A Elimmatta Road,Mona Vale, N.S.W ?

    Posted by Ken Johnson  on  24/04/09  at  08:38 PM
  14. Ian (#11) - do you have any evidence of impact of the baiting process being used on any of these animals at all?

    Pete (#13), these “sufficient gene pool” stats are often thrown about but in a case like the thylacine they generally refer to a population that is assumed not to be naturally increasing.  A species that has a population in very low numbers for a long period of time is likely to snuff it as a direct or indirect result of inbreeding eventually even if it doesn’t snuff it as a result of stochastic misfortune (or in simpler English, plain bad luck!).  But species can survive short-term bottlenecks and there is ample evidence that some currently successful species have, in the past, done just that.

    The viability issue therefore doesn’t apply to a feral species that is out of whack with its environment and increasing in population.  The countless successful establishments of feral mammal populations from very small initial populations demonstrate this.  In any case, even a small and seriously inbred population will not necessarily collapse immediately - it may take thousands of years.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  24/04/09  at  11:36 PM
  15. It is now fairly obvious to most thinking people that this fox issue is and always has been based on deceit,deception,misinformation and propaganda.
    Every time they are questioned the anonymous and the pseudonyms appear in support.
    Nine years of this nonsense with out one single result,that is the bottom line.
    My question to the pollies is can we afford this extravagant waste of taxpayers money in these hard economic times? The answer is simple no.
    The up coming PAC inquiry will reveal many things including the financial side of it all.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  25/04/09  at  08:52 AM
  16. In 2002 when the presence of foxes was made public I wrote a letter to The Advocate newspaper outlining the importance of listening for foxes. This was printed on April 18th as follows, under the heading.
    Search for fox
    The only hope of any fox control is to prevent the females breeding.
    Dog foxes can be completely ignored unless captured and fitted with monitoring devices.
    During breeding mates are found by calling.
    Dog foxes usually giving three short barks followed by a pause while they listen for any response.
    The vixens call is an eerie squall unlike any other animal.
    These calls should be transmitted on television
    in order that the general public can readily recognise them and report them. I have attempted in 2004 and 2007 to get the sound of a vixen squalling broadcast over the public address system at Agfest, even leaving a tape recorder of fox sounds in the PA centre.
    Bryan Green was not interested. Judy Jackson said that if one heard a fox it did not mean that foxes were here. David Llewellyn at first said the same. Later presumed I was referring to the barking of the dog fox. Later, at the instigation of David LLewellyn in an attempt to get my co-operation. I informed him that cooperation was not possible as the success of locating breeding foxes is not to go looking for them but get them to come looking for you. However Nick Mooney visited me at my home.  I explained that foxes do not hunt be scent but by sound and sight. While baiting may have some success on the mainland, particularly if it coincides with the introduction of myxy or liver decease and they would not be interested in dry baits in this fox paradise called Tasmania. I explained that this was covered in my letter to the Taskforce in March 2003. Nick Mooney has a copy. If we went to the end of my drive and listened on a night between mid April and mid July we might hear a fox. I could tell whether it was a dog fox or vixen at a time and place. The scat collectors turning up 2 months later and searching the area for scats discover a scat deposited at that time and place and months later is reported to be fox. Meantime the foxes which were considering breeding there are disturbed by the activity of strangers move to the other side of their territory, 16kl away and have full grown cubs before it is confirmed that foxes were at point X. So please could you answer the question, what is the purpose of scat collecting if not to build a taxpayer funded empire?.
    J A Stevenson Fox Control Association. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by J A Stevenson  on  25/04/09  at  09:34 AM
  17. Re #15 Yes ample evidence.
    One would not require the genius of Einstein to work out the incredible damage to our wildlife inflicted by this 1080 fox baiting campaign.
    The Hansard of the Legislative Council 30th October 2007 states that of 19,228 baits laid so far that calendar year 2,001 baits were taken.
    Now they certainly weren’t taken by foxes,cameras placed at the bait sites have photographed devils,quolls,possums,feral cats,echidnas,antechinus but NO foxes.
    Work it out for yourself wise ones.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  25/04/09  at  09:59 AM
  18. Re12 and 5. Mr Grist, sigh. You claim to name names but don’t. This is a public debate site isn’t it? You seem to be delivering veiled and cowardly slurs which don’t promote debate. I am not even sure who you are aiming at? I apologise if I am wrong but point me to where you and Dr O have actually named names and made your allegations . Also where have you provided your alternative suggestion to the problem for debate.  Happy to debate you here and now on this public site but some information of your position is prerequesite to the debate being remotely useful.
    As for your smoky comment , I have never entered this or any other of your threads before and am a real person for goodness sake. Why are you so worried about email addresses? I fully comply with blog conditions and note the ABC websites recommended code of practice on blogs which is as close as a national protocol as exists.

    Please surprise me and answer my questions as I will do you the similar courtescy. Name your names and make your allegations. Make your alternative suggestions. Tell me how you will feel if you are wrong and serve only to demotivate and distract or lessen resources to the people out in the field trying their hardest.

    I love cats but hate the damage feral cats do and think the death any animal even a feral is v. sad. But alas people have upset natural systems by introducing them meaning it is sometimes necessary to try to eradicate ferals as best as possible. Decisions need to be weighed up with the options available and the implications if nothing is done. And then the most humane option chosen. By- kill ( my term) of poisoning is just awful but I understand they can deliver 1080 to be carnivore specific at least. Seeing bandicoots return to the Lane cove National park in Sydney after feral control using the same sort of appoach is a joy.  Extinction of entire species is worse than short term loss of individuals through by-kill of poisoning. So it’s a best of the bad scenarios. I know the AWC in setting up its feral free enclosed sanctuaries was only able to clear ferals with a combination of poison, shooting and trapping and this has resulted in spendid sanctuaries of endangered aussie animals but no doubt created initial by-kills. With the small nuber of foxes and large area of Tassie ( to which I have never been I mmust say ) I expect poison would be the only viable option of covering large areas. I don’t think I have left any of your questions unanswered. So please return the courtescy.

    .re14 , Sorry no connection to the Mona Vale you quote and I don’t think to contribute to this debate I need to be placed in any box other than an aussie mum who loves wildlife and believes 99.99% of people are trying to do the right thing. Cowardly slurrers who chip away at people trying to do the right thing really don’t help to solve a potentially disastrous problem.

    Dr Oberndorf, you haven’t answered my questions. What are you alleging has been done and by whom here I am unclear . Please tell me how you will feel if you are wrong? Is that not a remote possibility in your thinking ?

    Posted by Theresa  on  25/04/09  at  10:52 AM
  19. Well folks I’m sorry to inform you that I and some friends were recently on a fishing expedition and all five of us are willing to swear upon the bible that we caught a “cane toad” now , slippery little bugger that he was ! we lost him, ( having a skin full and all) at the time ! but we figured that we just cannot have this menace breeding in our pristine environment , so we have done the right thing and have decided that we will approach the Govt armed with a photograph of proof of course) for the purpose of obtaining a grant to eradicate this pest before it’s presence gets entirely out of hand .

      We figure that an amount of say $50——60 million should be enough to get this eradication force into motion in ridding our beautiful state of this obnoxious pest, and hope to entirely eradicate it’s presence by 2017——19 !

      Wish us luck !


    Posted by don davey  on  25/04/09  at  12:45 PM
  20. Ian (#19), your reply disregards:

    * The evidence that foxes are much more susceptible to 1080 than some of those animals mentioned.

    * The fact that photography of an animal “investigating” a bait site is not necessarily evidence of it excavating the bait, wanting to eat the bait or being able to extract and eat the bait.

    The Hansard you quote states that “A recent trial at more than a dozen bait locations produced pictures of spotted-tailed quolls, devils, brushtail possums, wombats, echidnas and feral cats all investigating the sites over six to eight nights.” 

    It makes no reference to bettongs or antechinus.  Indeed bettongs have not been mentioned in the Legislative Council since 2003 and “antechinus” does not occur in the online upper house Hansard at all!

    I have seen reference to bettongs elsewhere in the different context of discussion concerning trials for impacts of Foxoff (eg but the indication is that the impacts are likely to be negligible.  What is your evidence concerning antechinus?

    Amusingly I also found the reference to echidnas etc in the Hansard of 13 Nov 2007, where Ivan Dean shows his formidable grasp of ecology with the hilarious comment “It is a fact that most of those animals would not have been here if there had been foxes about because they would have been eating them.”  Ivan Dean was clearly unaware of the concept of an emergent population below carrying capacity.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  25/04/09  at  06:04 PM
  21. Re # 22 What do you think the devils and quolls were looking for at the bait sites Kevvy - fairy floss?
    Re #20 Thirsty what cowardly imbecile are you trying to help? If you think I am going to name names here for your and yours to benefit think again. Expanding your intelligence quotient capacity is of no interest to me,nice try but you will have to wait.
    I will reveal all at the PAC inquiry where the appropriate people can deal with it.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  25/04/09  at  07:04 PM
  22. Also Kevvy if the devils and quolls were at the bait sites looking for fairey floss what would you say dug up the 2000 baits that were not recovered? Come on Kevvy surprise me.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  25/04/09  at  07:52 PM
  23. Now Don,

    The reason I do not belive you’re post# 21. You do not have any mates. You and I know this. If you had been on a fishing expedition by yourself, I might have believed you. Oh, and Ian Rist, the day you answer a direct question I will fall over, it is hilarious reading your innane ramblings on these pages. It’s almost as funny as watching you try and play football all those years ago.


    Posted by tt  on  25/04/09  at  08:58 PM
  24. Anonymous Personal Abuse deleted

    I am ashamed of Australias extinction record and hope the Tassie Gov’t is strong enough to see what’s real and at stake and can stay whatever course is needed. Seems the cries of the species at risk of the fox aren’t as loud as the cries from the notoriety seeking squeaky wheels.We all should think about the fact that the dissapointment and shame of extinction will last beyond our lifetimes and on forever.

    Posted by Theresa  on  25/04/09  at  09:35 PM
  25. J A Stevenson has a great idea (#17).

    It’s a crying pity when great ideas are overlooked.  What J A Stevenson said to get people listening and reporting noises of foxes is a great idea and would appear to be relatively cheap and doable to my way of thinking.
    It is really dissapointing it hasn’t been taken up.

    My hope is that what unites ( love of wildlife and avoiding extinctions ) is bigger than what might divide.

    I remain optomistic. Keep coming up with ideas and put them forward again and again.

    Posted by Theresa  on  25/04/09  at  09:52 PM
  26. Terry (#23-4)*, I think they were looking for your credibility and that they went away not merely hungry but also throwing up as well. 

    Whether some of the baits were taken and eaten by some of the animals you list is beside the point of my questions.  Of the five animals you list, two (bettongs and antechinus) are not even on the list of animals you mentioned and you have still provided no evidence relating to either.  The unlikeliness of a fox bait even giving a devil or quoll a hangover was done to death by Nick Mooney at - a thread which I have bookmarked it as it so often comes in handy when debunking all the 1080 nonsense, especially yours.

    I don’t recall what risk of death is posed to brushtail possums by fox baiting, but they are an abundant species that (from a species conservation perspective) would be well worth losing thousands of if the result was the extirpation of foxes from the state or even their containment at low numbers. 

    Indeed the only animals that were reported in the Hansard as found dead as a result of this poisoning are ... feral cats!  Yep, good ol’ Felis catus, the same ones your side keeps portraying as the major enemy although they haven’t gone near causing a single known extinction on the Tassie mainland yet.

    So when’s the PAC inquiry? Open to the public? Are they selling front row seats?  Perhaps they should make themselves useful and examine why Dr Obendorf hasn’t yet owned up that his article would not have passed the refereeing standards of a highschool classroom project.

    (* Sorry, bad Chaser pun there but I couldn’t resist it after Ian’s imbecilic provocation.  Ian is not really a Terry but he is a lame flamer, a frequent defamer, a puerile misnamer and worse.  I’m generally against pseudonymous posting on this site but Ian’s behaviour is such that he fully deserves it.)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  25/04/09  at  10:22 PM
  27. (25)
        oh !  i dunno David !  ya gotta remember that the other side , had that big bastard “Goliath”  so i reckon we acquitted ourselves pretty well under the circumstances.

    Posted by don davey  on  25/04/09  at  10:30 PM
  28. (26 27)
        Theresa !  Where have you been !  what you suggest has been put forward time and time again over eight or so years by people ” that are absolute experts ” in dealing with foxes but those continued calls keep falling upon deaf ears  
        There is “mucho dinero” in this and the Tassie public, no ! not just Tasmanians ! all ! of Australia ! unfortunately, consist’s of a majority of “Fred and Marge Averages” who will believe anything those in power are willing to spew out! it’s called apathy ! 
        The saddest part of the whole sorry mess is that the opposition can also be blamed for going along with it also, but what surprises me the most is that the Green’s are saying Zilch.

    Posted by don davey  on  25/04/09  at  10:49 PM
  29. WOW. First we had flying foxes, now we have exploding foxes. That could scatter DNA samples over a huge area and create hundreds of scats, especially if what they were eating was the cause of them exploding.

    But why bother? There is enough road kill each day to keep a couple of hundred foxes well fed, especially now the devils have virtually disappeared. Then there are the forestry hunters who kill off a few thousand of our wild life every year, and with the amount of poisoning that still goes on, I’m suprised any scavenger can survive.

    Then again, perhaps they would actually be doing Tasmania a service if they decimated the wildlife. After all, didn’t one famous and influential forestry person say about the native animals, ‘there are just too many of them’? It would save us having to poison them, shoot them, put up fences, it would keep our roads clean and prevent us getting all those expensive dents in the front of our cars.

    Farmers losses you say? Well, if we abandoned the fox control board, or whatever thay call themselves, we’d have over $5 million a year to pay any compensation claims.

    All those in favour of foxes, say ‘Aye’!

    Posted by Gerry Mander  on  25/04/09  at  11:10 PM
  30. Theresa, if you are ashamed of Australia’s extinction rate, how will you feel if any remaining thylacines are killed from eating 1080 laced prey? And please, Kevin and others, let’s not rehash the absurd argument 1080 wouldn’t kill a living thylacine. While I am not convinced thylacines are still extant, I’m certainly not convinced of the opposite, either; but I digress.

    Regarding the earlier question, a population of several dozen individuals would contain enough genetic variability to avoid inbreeding depression IF those individuals were sufficiently heterozygous themselves. Kevin correctly answered other points on this matter. At any rate, some species can do OK without much variability - others don’t.

    Regarding foxes hunting by sight and sound, largely true, but they certainly can be trapped using scent baits as I have done myself.

    I find myself almost in the middle of this debate. In general, I give merit to Ian’s position we should let the landowners and hunters have a good go at finding these phantom foxes. The problem is if substantial rewards are offered, this tempts the importation of foxes or at the very least various levels of trickery. If anyone has suggestions as how this could be avoided, by all means I would be interested in the commentary.

    Hello to all my good friends…

    Posted by David Alford  on  25/04/09  at  11:39 PM
  31. My goodness they are all very worried,they obviously know what is coming! LOL and double LOL. Should be too,their little empire is drying up.
    As for you Thirsty keep opening your mouth,every time you do you reveal just a little bit more about yourself.

    As for “David et tt”  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  I never played football you have got the wrong Rist you tosser,no wonder you can’t catch a single poor old fox,you wouldn’t know if one bit you on the arse LOL LOL

    One thing is obvious here all the cowards that won’t or can’t use their own names…what is it cowardice,the golden handcuffs or just plain lack of spine.

    Also any one who is prepared to lay baits across the landscape without any control over what takes them is no better than a terrorist,and those that profit from it are about the lowest of the low.
    I hope the sqeals and cries of these poor innocent animals you are poisoning haunt you in hell. No wonder you bait layers remain anonymous and use pseudonyms,and you can take money for these heinus acts?

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  26/04/09  at  09:04 AM
  32. Dr Bonham. You have not answered the question.
    What is the purpose of scat collection. The time involved between finding the scat and when the result is obtained is useless for any purpose of fox control. This futile 1080 excercise has been going on since 2002. Conara has been baited 6 times up to 2006,how many times since?. Scats regularly are disconered in that area. The location of the discovered scats owes more to easy access of transport than density of scats.
    Foxes are more likely to be located where people are not than where they are. A vixen was reported at Irish Town in 2007 one night only in June, a dog fox reported below Hobart in April,one night only but the two people who heard it did not seen a FCA advert in one of the farming newspapers before August. These were obviously travelling foxes looking for mates. No foxes reported calling for mates in 2008. The Fox Taskfarce have known about this method of fox detection since 2003 in my original letter. When I said to Nick Mooney, about standing at the end of the drive and listening, he admitted that this area of alerting the public to fox calls had been neglected. I hoped that at Agfest 2008 this would be rectified, no so. Perhaps someone will get fox calls to be broadcast over the public address system hourly at the next Agfest. That would do more good than all the millions of dollars spent scat collecting. Very doubtful if this will be adopted. The Doctors of Death ,who seem to have the ears of government would not wish to join the unemployed.
    Empires can not be built by getting the general public to stand at the door occasionally for the next three months just listening. Foxes can be heard over 1000m away on a still night.
    J A Stevenson. Fox Control Association. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by J A Stevenson  on  26/04/09  at  09:19 AM
  33. Oh dear. As I sit here on Friday night, I see a fox hunt being conducted on Midsummer Murders.

    No doubt this will provoke another round of obsessive comment, conspiracy and refutation on Monday.

    If you cannot beat them, join them. I would like to get this comment in first.

    Posted by Cheshire  on  26/04/09  at  11:26 AM
  34. Dave don’t tell them anything you don’t want them to know,they are shit scared of the PAC inquiry and are desperate to find out what we/I know.
    Even some of their old work mates and colleagues have turned on them, one that saw the light early has tipped the scat can on them from a great height.
    Their puppets,drones and flak catchers are working over time,I guess defrauding taxpayers money is a serious offence…could even bring time in the can.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  26/04/09  at  01:56 PM
  35. Moderator - you got to be kidding “Anonymous Personal Abuse deleted”.

    She just called him a tosser - you better revisit all ol’ risty’s accusations of criminal activity…

    Did he complain?  Man what a sook!

    Double standard by TT - didn’t think you’d stoop so low.

    First time poster and now last time - very disappointed in TT double standard.

    Posted by jorgecarpenter  on  26/04/09  at  08:59 PM
  36. Theresa, your blog comments reminded me of ones sent direct to my email address - .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) - from a senior manager in DPIW who was responsible the Fox-Free Taskforce a few years ago. Your question: “Are you doubting there are foxes and do you have an alternative positive suggestion on the matter?” was uncannily familiar.

    Theresa, you write that you’re a busy Sydney mum who loves wildlife and new to this issue. Gosh, it’s great to see Tassie Times has such a wide readership and you’re a bushcarer for Lane Cove biodiversity as well. I also see you’ve done some research on the Tassie fox topic; you cite the involvement of the experienced UK fox biologist, Professor Steve Harris in reviewing the Tasmanian Fox Program in 2006. I wonder whether you actually read this report? Since you’re new to this topic, could I suggest you also read some of the earlier Tasmanian Times articles on foxes on this website?

    And Theresa Herd please feel free to give me a call on 03 6234 5561 or send me your phone number via email and I’ll be happy to give you a call.

    Posted by David Obendorf  on  26/04/09  at  11:06 PM
  37. I am falling over laughing at this. OMG, censorship at the Tassie Times! Heaps worse things have been said than what I said. My view are up front, with name and email details and I and censoed as an anonymous abuser (#26). I thought they might have at least sent me an email.

    Any way Mr Rist don’t offer to debate “anywhere any time” when you won’t. Don’t say you have always named names when you won’t and you don’t.
    If you can’t make a positive contribution why not go and do sudokos. Surely if you have allegations as serious as you say, you must go immediately to the police.

    I’ll be betting the pac thing has parlimentary priviledge allowing you to make your slurrs.

    Posted by Theresa  on  26/04/09  at  11:10 PM
  38. So a homemaker mum in Sydney can’t use google (or comon sense)?  (#35)...Gees,you guys have old fashioned ideas.  Bet the pay and hours are better than mine at DWPI or whereever!! Ha! Who says you have the monopoly on ideas and opinions.

    PLEASE keep going JA Stevenson your ideas are good and don’t discouraged at setbacks, be positive,  it really is worth persisting. Wish I could do more.
    I’m out.

    Posted by Theresa  on  27/04/09  at  11:17 AM
  39. Kevvy obviously you can’t add up either, one Tasmanian fox bait = three (3) MG OF 1080. The LD50 of a Tiger Quoll (spotted tailed quoll) is 1.85 mg per kilo of bodyweight.
    As for feral cats not being responsible for extinctions means you can’t read either,what planet are you on? I think you are one that believes your own nonsense as soon as it comes out of your mouth.

    As for Theresa why don’t you come out of the closet and tell us (that don’t know already) who you really are?  Lane Cove house mum…don’t think so.
    I am going to have great pleasure…
    Is it true the purveyors of poison are having a meeting in Hobart this week?
    Did I hear the words exit strategy mentioned?

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  27/04/09  at  11:30 AM
  40. RE # 38 Bet you are grand you don’t get a phone call Dave from her/him.

    Posted by Ken Johnson  on  27/04/09  at  12:41 PM
  41. Now who will Theresa be this week?

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  27/04/09  at  01:31 PM
  42. David Alford (#32) shows up with his thylacine tirades yet again (OK, that’s not all he showed up with and some of the rest was actually useful) although nobody has mentioned thylacines on this thread except in the completely different context of discussion about critical population sizes for a mammal.  David is still kicking at the same straw man he was kicking at in our previous extensive debate/flamewar about this matter in the middle of the $1000 Fox Reward thread. 

    In that debate David said “any remaining thylacines in Tasmania would be susceptible to the same fate” (as dogs dying from eating poisoned animals).  I pointed out that there was no reason to believe modest doses of 1080 would kill a thylacine and many reasons to suspect this wouldn’t occur, although we could never know for sure.  David Alford then persistently misrepresented me as claiming that 1080 would definitely be safe for thylacines, and when that failed resorted to personal attacks. 

    He’s at it again here where he refers to the “absurd argument 1080 wouldn’t kill a living thylacine”.  But that was not my argument and nor was my argument absurd.  My argument was that 1080 would be very unlikely to kill a living thylacine in the very unlikely case that there was one left to kill.  The absurd argument was David Alford’s claim that “any remaining thylacines in Tasmania would be susceptible to the same fate”.  That claim, made as ambit fact, was unsubstantiated and there is still no reason to believe that it is true and very good reason to believe it isn’t.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  27/04/09  at  01:49 PM
  43. JA Stevenson (#34), I believe I have answered your question, but it looks like either the answer wasn’t one you wanted to hear or else the idea of monitoring as a part of an overall control strategy is somehow incomprehensible to you.

    Not sure what you are getting at about Conara since the evidence map shows only two scats confirmed there, one in 2005 and one in 2008.

    Also, could you please explain what you mean by your comment about “The Doctors of Death”? It has such a delightful lost-Dr-Who-episode-title ring to it that I would really hate for it to be defamatory and have to be removed.  :)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  27/04/09  at  01:57 PM
  44. Terry (#41), there are numerous problems with your clueless comment about STQs.  The amount of 1080 in the bait rapidly deteriorates once it is in the ground and STQs are unlikely to take it until it has been there for a while, and secondly the weight of an independently foraging STQ is nearly always well in excess of a kilogram.  Thus even if a STQ consumes a whole fox bait it is likely to be only eating a fraction of LD50, and there are also doubts that it would eat the whole bait anyway.  Your objection was debunked completely in the Mooney article I linked to but clearly you lack the comprehension level required to realise that.

    As for feral cats, if you believe my comment to be nonsense, then state a species that has been exterminated from the Tasmanian mainland by feral cats, or that is seriously likely to be thus exterminated.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  27/04/09  at  02:13 PM
  45. Has anyone done a dissection on “Theresa’s” name as yet ? for instance what would you say if you saw a lot of foxes ? it would be incorrect ! but would you say “There’s a herd” of foxes !
          Very good ! but still a god-damn (Personal Abuse Deleted)

    Posted by don davey  on  27/04/09  at  02:59 PM
  46. Dr Bonham. When I first heard about the use of DNA for the identification of foxes in 2003, I thought it was a miracle, particularly, that by this method, individual foxes and groups of foxes could be identified so precisely that the location of that strain could be tracked back to its point of origin on the mainland. Over six years later, even if they can identify the sex (at last) they seem unable to identify their kin. I think you have answered the question. There is no purpose in scat collection. The discovery of the first dozen scats solved the only question this expensive exercise. One scat, 100 or 1000. What is the difference?  Where are they breeding? That is the question.
    The point about Conara is. In spite of repeated baiting fox scats continue to be located in that area which proves to me that baiting will not kill alert and fit foxes. Foxes are not like Tasmanian Devils or Labrador gun dogs, walking dustbins but are dainty eaters, more like a cat, which will prefer to catch and eat its prey while still alive and kicking. If bait is disturbed by a fox it will just cache it elsewhere.
    The Doctors of Death were the German doctors who developed 1080 as a weapon of war. Along with Sarin and thalidomite to offset the effects of sarin.
    Being a doctor I thought you would know what I meant. All who had connection with the Invasive Animals CRC Report deserve that title and I hope they sue me. Also anyone else who advocates poison, a vile death for any creature.
    Go to page 63 of that report if you have not already read it.
    J A Stevenson. Fox Control Association. hythorn@aapt,

    Posted by J A Stevenson  on  27/04/09  at  04:29 PM
  47. Well Kevvy what about juveniles and female Spotted Tailed Quolls ? You also don’t know anything about the 1080 deterioration rates in Foxoff.
    Unlikely to take the bait for a while you say,nonsense.You have taken that straight out of the Mooney hymn book. Have you actually done any research of your own? Try the Tallaganda state forest and Badja state forest for starters.
    Re your Bettong and Antechinus comment # 22 do you think the Legislative Council Hansard is the official recording site for the thousands of photos captured?  Plleeaase… you try to squirm out of a corner every time by trying to be manipulative.
    Suggest you also go to AusStats invasive species and check the cat/fox threat.
    Kevvy have you looked in the mirror and thought about it and asked yourself why you piss a lot of people off,not only on TT but chess blog sites?
    Or is it you believe in your own mind you are so superior to everyone else?
    Have you actually seen a wild fox anywhere? I bet the answer is no.
    I have actually got more to do with my time than argue with you anyway Kevvy,as people have said to me you are wasting your time,Kevvy will always want the last say…it’s a playground thing.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  27/04/09  at  04:38 PM
  48. Don Davey’s post (47)is personal abuse and should be censored by the moderator.  Especially if calling Ian Rist a tosser gets censored then it is a double standard to leave this. A bit of fairness please and perhaps an apology to the many ther Theresas around the world (and the 3 other Theresa Herds on facebook in particular).

    Who is moderating this blog please. Can anyone tell me . I was interested in this topic but not the paranoid abuse!!

    .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by Theresa  on  27/04/09  at  07:31 PM
  49. I think a bit of research into email addresses will reveal the correct name of dear Theresa actually should start with an A.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  28/04/09  at  11:42 AM
  50. 50.
        Lets just say that i don’t believe for a
    moment that your name is Theresa Herd and that my assumption that you made up that name by manipulating or in this case by removing a comer ! and Viola !  “there’s a herd” ! let,s just say you have been caught ! and leave it at that ,after all as you have stated “Linz” is the moderator and consequently will know who you are.
        Mind you ! I have been wrong before ! but not this time methinks !
        Then again why don’t I do a “bonham” in saying “where is your evidence”


    Posted by don davey  on  28/04/09  at  11:52 AM
  51. JA Stevenson (#48) asserts that the presence of fox scats in Conara proves that baiting won’t kill foxes.  This isn’t correct; the discovery of scats some time after poisoning in an area could indicate that another fox has moved into the area since the poisoning event, for example. (And no, I’m not that sort of “doctor”.)  As for whether these forms of baiting are effective or not, there has obviously been extensive experience with them on the mainland and I’d prefer to listen to that experience than to assertions that a fox will just cache a bait elsewhere. 

    In #49 our pet hack Terry Rist, who isn’t even a scientist of *any* description, and can’t even comprehend the existing research, is asking me if I’ve done any STQ research of my own (#49).  No Terry of course I haven’t, but the point about juvenile STQs was also addressed in Mooney’s article, while adult female STQs typically weigh much more than 1 kg.  Foxoff was also addressed at length in the Mooney article which cited other sources, so it is not just the “Mooney hymn book” you are up against Terry, but a wide range of refereed research.  As for the Tallaganda/Badja research, this refers to the aerial deployment of kangaroo meat baits which is not the same as either of the Tasmanian mechanisms under discussion.

    You ask do I think “the Legislative Council Hansard is the official recording site for the thousands of photos captured?” No Terry, the question is *do you think this*?  When I asked in #15 if you had any evidence for the list of animals you gave in #11, your response in #19 referred specifically to “The Hansard of the Legislative Council 30th October 2007”.  You referred to no other source of evidence.  What is your evidence that bettongs and antechinus have been photographed at bait sites?

    Once again concerning cat threats you fail to address the actual issue I raised, which is can you name a species likely to become extinct (not merely a listed threatening factor) from the Tasmanian mainland as a result of cat predation, or can you name one that has become extinct.  Evidently, no to either.

    It’s interesting you refer to me pissing “a lot” of people off with reference to chess sites, because this is another example of you not knowing what you are talking about.  The c(h)esspit that you stumbled across is a small breakaway forum headed up by trolls we banned, so much a failure that its owner has to *pay* people to post there; the number of people genuinely “pissed off” with me on it probably isn’t even in double figures, while the parent forum where I am well regarded has hundreds of active posters. 

    But of course, my ability to debunk nonsense does infuriate extremist hotheads, and while they are rare in the chess community, on this site there are often quite a lot of those.  I do not believe I am superior to everyone else, Terry, but I certainly believe I am superior to frothing, fact-averse, legally-threatening dunderheads like you.

    I have not personally seen a fox in Tasmania but I know at least four people who state that they have, at least three of whom are experienced naturalists.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  28/04/09  at  02:26 PM
  52. # 43 asks “who will Theresa be this week?”, with associated attacks on anonymous posters in #11, 16, 33, etc. Perhaps the answer is “Catoligist”? For those unaware, look back at comments 35, 37 and 42 in the thread “Foxes: it’s simple”.
    “Catoligist” was far more than a simple typo missing out a zero or a capital, #11.

    Posted by Cheshire  on  29/04/09  at  09:35 AM
  53. Re # 54 education program required on email address used on TT,if you click on catologist of course it will show as .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
    you dumb fox hunter…did you think I wasn,t aware of that?
    You people are so dumb,no wonder you haven’t caught a fox. ALSO you have made a painfully obvious,terrible,stupid mistake with your latest attempt to deceive…I would love to tell you but I will give you thickheads a day or two to work it out.
    Re # 53 it’s a playground thing.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  29/04/09  at  03:10 PM
  54. #55 - of course Terry is *now* aware that his designated email address shows with his post.  After all when he posted as “Catoligist” [sic] on the thread mentioned in #54, I immediately pointed it out.  Whether he realised it before that I do not know, and have no way of knowing - but I doubt it.  Perhaps I should have waited for him to start replying to himself just to make absolutely sure.  :)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  29/04/09  at  06:15 PM
  55. christ ! it’s simple , I’m surprised that no one has worked out just who Theresa is , after all he is a serial impersonator this place.
                think about it !

    Posted by don davey  on  29/04/09  at  06:25 PM
  56. #55 playground thing

    I searched fox on TT
    I did only check 10 threads on foxes.
    Ian, you are the last word on almost all.
    The only other last word was from David O
    Not once was it Kevin Bonham

    Just because you say something over and over and over and over, doesn’t make it so.

    I agree it’s a playground thing.

    Posted by B*llsh*t detector  on  29/04/09  at  08:33 PM
  57. 58
      same guy as catologist !

    Posted by don davey  on  30/04/09  at  01:14 AM
  58. Re # 56 and #58 are you really that thick dr B? I am really looking forward to meeting you in person.

    I can’t type this morning, I’m still laughing about the fox with the lentil stuffed bandicoot. LOL…LOL.
    It least that fox wasn’t stuffed with an endemic Tasmanian long tailed mouse.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  30/04/09  at  07:51 AM
  59. A lot of people that know me often refer to me as the Catologist. It was given to me by a close friend Graham Otley after he had been out with me on spot lighting expeditions to destroy feral cats that were killing our game birds and wildlife.
    When it came to rifle shooting of a night with spot light he said I could only compare you with Luciano Pavarotti and opera.
    I take that as a compliment and try to ignore the ranting of idiots.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  30/04/09  at  08:27 AM
  60. Also re #58 if you say kevvy it has to be right.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  30/04/09  at  08:28 AM
  61. Re #55: an ideal demonstration of how far out, paranoid and delusional this “debate” has become. Also an ideal demonstration that the activities you accuse and decry of others are clearly considered acceptable for your own use.

    You fling mud, yet for all the posturing you are clearly wrong about the target. What a lonely, depressing world it must be where everyone else is a part of this conspiracy. Surely at some point it ceases to be a conspiracy if everyone is involved?

    Cheshire. With a grin.

    Posted by Cheshire  on  30/04/09  at  10:10 AM
  62. Dr Bonham.  Perhaps you could say what sort of a “Doctor “ you are . My self, I am a complete ignoramus. When I was newly turned 12 France fell to the Germans and the UK seemed next in line.  Provided one had a note from a farmer one was not marked absent from the register.  Hitler’s Doctors of Death had already perfected 1080 and Sarin but were unsure whether Britain had something similar.  Dr Glen Saunders did much work on finding out that rats are difficult to poison. Perhaps this he is titled Doctor.  A few of us went round with the threshing machine from farm to farm killing rats when the stack of corn was threshed. Three boys with short sticks killed plus the farm dog killed 350-400 rats on day. A pile of rats about 3ft high. We were OK but the poor dog got bitten so many times its nose was like a football, it lay in the yard for three days, just stagged to the trough to drink at times .It lived. The reason there was so many rats was because Warfarin had not been discovered.  Every one knew rats are difficult to poison .
    If you knew anything at all about foxes you would know that foxes prefer warm, live food, easily digested and served with the spice of the chase. Tests on caged foxes which were fed on dried kangaroo could not detect it when buried 100mm down from I metre away. They could not detect it when lying exposed on the surface from 3 metres. This is their dinner they could not find. On Google Type. Read fox finds lunch. Where the mainland experts make their biggest mistake is comparing Tasmania with the mainland. That is why in 2002 I realised that mainland practises will not work in Tasmania.  Particularly if their research was carried out when one of the rabbit population crashes occurred. In spite of all the poisons used rabbits are coming back, so to are the foxes. It would make more sense now to take better care of the lambing ewes and let the foxes eat up the rabbits.
    The arguement that foxes are coming into the Conara area could be quite correct. The activities of the foxes, night soil collectors, searching for scats, then following up later baiting and to follow that with checking the baits would drive foxes looking for a place to breed miles away. I do not quite follow the reference to Cesspits but anything connected with scats collecting fits

    Posted by J A Stevenson  on  30/04/09  at  10:12 AM
  63. Re # 63. I look forward to meeting you at the PAC inquiry. Ian Rist - with a big grin.
    If only you guys knew what’s coming.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  30/04/09  at  10:45 AM
  64. Re #64 the “Dr” simply indicates that I hold a doctoral degree. 

    You don’t give any reason why Tasmania should be different from the mainland in terms of whether foxes will find and eat a buried bait or not.  Furthermore a fox’s preference for live prey is not really relevant since clearly foxes do not feed exclusively on live prey.  However I would be interested in sources for the comments you make about foxes being unable to find live kangaroo.

    The reference to “C(h)esspits” was unrelated to this forum and was because Ian “Terry” Rist was trolling me unsuccessfully about some struggling chess forum where a small bunch of trolls there are apoplectic about my existence and standing in the chess community.

    Terry (#60), I have no intention of wasting my time speaking with you in person so don’t get any tickets on yourself about the prospect of a meeting as such.  And if you think the wonderful #58 was written by me, the question is are *you* really that thick?

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  30/04/09  at  01:51 PM
  65. Doctor Bonham. Is your Doctorate connected to animal health, husbandry or environment or any other related subjects.  If not you should not pen under that title on this subject. Because you submitted a paper sometime and obtained that distinction does not mean you know what you are writing about.
    If you do not know why foxes would not eat bait in Tasmania when they eat it on the mainland .God help you, know one else can. The whole purpose of the Fox campaign is to prevent foxes becoming established here and eating all the unique, abundant, Tasmanian wildlife. They have cleaned it all up on the mainland and at times of the year, food is hard to find. Now rabbits are coming back so are the foxes in spite of poisoning. I have never seen foxes eating road kill in the UK.  Foxes are opportunists and omnivores; they do not find grapes, blackberries, frogs, grasshoppers or worms by scent. Dried bait lying in or on the ground emits neither movement nor sound. Foxes use sight firstly, and then sound and if down wind scent then comes into play. Dried bait lying on the surface would give off very little scent. Regardless of the wind direction foxes are searching for something they are used to eating.
    I found the reference to Cesspits yesterday when I was trying to discover your qualifications to pontificate on the subjects of DNA and Foxes. Nothing of any interest was found. Not even what you are.
    J A Stevenson, Fox Control Association. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by J A Stevenson  on  01/05/09  at  10:12 AM
  66. Re #65: whatever Catologist / Catoligist / Ian / Terry / etc, sorry to disappoint, but I wont be at the PAC enquiry. This topic does not obsess my life. That is why I have posted less on it in all of the threads combined than you do in an hour. It was the hypocrisy I was not going to let pass.

    I hope you do have dynamite evidence for the PAC enquiry. If you do not, I am sure the Tasmanian Times readership will be able to supply you with a new nickname to match the epic anticlimax.

    Cheshire. With a yawn.

    Posted by Cheshire  on  01/05/09  at  10:18 AM
  67. You are a spineless pathetic little creature aren’t you Bonham?
    The only reason you would be afraid to meet me is you wouldn’t have the intestinal fortitude to repeat some of the things you have said to my face.
    All you freaks are the same…gutless.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  01/05/09  at  10:49 AM
  68. Re # 68

    Dear Cheshire

    Explosive would be more appropriate.
    Come along to the PAC on Monday May 25th at 1.00.p.m.
    I would imagine there would be a few worried,maybe you included.
    But anyone who hasn’t been naughty has nothing to worry about do they?
    But do the crime and do the time.

    Best wishes
    The Foxologist

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  01/05/09  at  01:41 PM
  69. lol, this is more like it. To think I used to complain about the bickering, but this is champagne comedy. Ian, or should I say Catologist, caught red handed doing what he’s been attacking others for. & while all this high drama is unfolding dear old d.d. is rambling away in the corner about something completely immaterial to the debate at hand. Comment 59 is even pointing in completely the wrong direction. Almost as good as d.d. accusing KB of being Rob Blakers many a thread ago! Oh please, more of this. Just brill!!!  roflmao ;)

    Posted by Rachel  on  01/05/09  at  02:08 PM
  70. LINZ !

        I believe that I am in complete order in demanding that K.Bonham, show the evidence for his statements as he has set out below from his post (66) 
        I understand his value to this site, as you have stated ! as a “political observer” and with that I do not profess to have an opinion , however it has been obvious that many posters have been deterred from posting here, by his obnoxious, superior and wilful comments , as was I ! originally ! when he found need to comment on my lack of education and style of writing to which I have freely admitted on numerous occasions, and to which has hopefully improved over my time in participating , never the less ! this place prides itself ! “supposedly” for free and open discussion “for all” ! and posters should not be rated on ! or about ! their ability (or lack of) in doing so.
          I have personally been in touch with the editorial section of this WELL KNOWN and LEADING chess site and complaints of his behaviour were as they are here ,which led to he being banned.
          I do not ask for anyone to be banned, in fact I firmly believe in vigorous debate and discussion and I know that many will agree with me in asking you to have this person refrain from his intimidating style , it is ungracious , unbecoming,cowardly, and in the extreme, childish behaviour.
                        Don Davey

      “The reference to “C(h)esspits” was unrelated to this forum and was because Ian “Terry” Rist was trolling me unsuccessfully about,
      ( some struggling chess forum where a small bunch of trolls there are apoplectic about my existence and standing in the chess community.)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 30/04/09 at 02:51 PM

    Posted by don davey  on  01/05/09  at  03:43 PM
  71. JA Stevenson asks if my doctorate is connected to “animal health, husbandry or environment or any other related subjects.”  It is certainly connected to environment (and animals too, albeit very little ones)!  It is not connected to foxes, but the “Dr” is part of my username for this whole site at the moment, and hence all my posts appear signed that way. For the reasons this is the case, see the boring stuff at the end of the most recent Andrew Wilkie thread; I can’t be bothered repeating it.  As it happens, one has to submit more than just a paper to obtain a doctorate; more like a 400-page book. Of course it does not automatically mean I know what I am talking about on *this* subject, but nor does it mean that I don’t!

    As for your theory that foxes are less likely to take baits here since they have an abundance of food available, that is something that would be interesting to test.  We know that native mammal populations in mainland areas infested with foxes are often denuded and that this is something often cited as a visible difference between Tasmania and the mainland even for those just travelling through noting roadkills.  But as you are doubtless aware, foxes mainly eat smaller creatures; are you suggesting that invertebrates occur more densely in Tasmanian fox habitats than in fox habitats on the mainland? 

    Ian (#69), alas for you I am neither spineless, nor little (pathos is in the eye of the beholder), and your claim about me is easily tested. 

    The real reason I do not wish to meet you is that I have no desire to dignify your online behaviour with anything you might delude yourself into thinking was even the slightest measure of friendship or respect. 

    Telling you what I think of you to your face, however, is quite another matter, and if you really want to put that to the test, I would be more than happy to walk up to you, tell you that I meant what I said about your drivel online, and walk away.  Let me know if you are interested (of course, this depends on me having my schedule free whenever this bloody PAC thing is anyway.)

    Ian, I’ve told people what I think of them to their faces when they had large crowds on their side.  If you think I’d lack the courage to do so in your case, you are sadly and incredibly deluded.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  01/05/09  at  04:32 PM
  72. Monday 25th 1 pm WHERE? I want tickets.

    Is there alive broadcast?  Surely the TV rights are worth more than the whole program.

    Risty finally lays out the evidence of fraud and joins the dots in the conspiracy…

    Scamming scientists and filthy stealing public servants gape in horror as they realise they’ll be picking up the soap in a damp and dank shower cell at Risdon for 5-10.

    Maybe Ivan Dean can use his influence and get Risty a few minutes alone in the van to give them the bitchslapping they deserve before they are whisked off?

    (Anonymous Derision Deleted)

    Posted by B*llsh*t detector  on  01/05/09  at  05:34 PM
  73. Well here we go again ,“RACHEL” seems to be the latest new face that, everytime there is controversy such as this latest name calling drivel, a post of mine (59) “which had been sent in error and detracted” , finds it,s way out of sync, and into this mess.
                    Linz ?


    Posted by don davey  on  01/05/09  at  05:47 PM
  74. Dear Mr Bonham

    I will be in Hobart on 25th 26th and 27th of May 2009.
    Let’s arrange a meeting.

    Ian Rist

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  01/05/09  at  06:15 PM
  75. Bonham. I refuse to honour you with the title doctor, unless I use Doctor of Death, you obviously agree with the poisoning of such beautiful, highly intelligent animals. Foxes can be defeated by other, more humane, methods.  They did not ask to be brought to Australia or Tasmania.  I only use first names for my friends. You despise anyone who is not a scientist. Formal education passed me by after the age of 12. I was a member of the Royal Forestry Association for 58 years. A Life member of The Kennel Club. Arnold White-Robinson, noted dog trainer for the Duke of Wellington and John Stubbs, Head Gamekeeper to HM the Queens Windsor Estate. Joe Weir, Huntsman to the Ulleswater Foxhounds and numerous other keepers and countrymen were my friends. Breeder, trainer and handler of Labrador Gun dogs for over 40 years. Spending my working life as a farm worker and forester, yes I have the certificate. Observing nature first hand, not out of books, and while not professing to know it all, I pride myself in knowing a little.    Reference to your paragraph that foxes could not find kangaroos I find very strange. I do not recollect writing this. Perhaps, although being a doctor, you can not read very well. Please believe me when I say that foxes would not eat dried, shoe leather type, kangaroo when warm, tasty, living food is available. The FEB have more than enough excuses to throw tax payers hard earned money about without conducting more tests. Foxes could not kill a adult, fit kangaroo but, if on Google you type “Fox bites Wallaby” you will get an idea of what foxes can kill. The wallaby only escaped because some one intruded. J A Stevenson. Fox Control Association. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by J A Stevenson  on  01/05/09  at  11:47 PM
  76. None of my business of course “Cheshire” however i find it uncharacteristic ! your participation in what is developing into a spiteful little episode ! which as usual is always cleverly initiated by the usual suspect.


    Posted by don davey  on  02/05/09  at  01:21 AM
  77. #70 - Hi Ian. How do you know that? I only ask because I made a submission to the enquiry re threatened species, and I haven’t heard anything back re time/place etc. It wouldn’t matter so much, except I’ll be away for a lot of the coming months, and not knowing if I will/won’t be required to attend is a complication I don’t need. Have you already been notified re when and where the enquiry is taking place?


    Posted by Dr Niall Doran  on  02/05/09  at  02:29 AM
  78. Dr Niall Doran
    Dear Sir
          On Friday the 1st of May 2009 I was contacted on the telephone by the Parliamentary Accounts Committee Secretary and asked if I could attend to give evidence at 1.p.m on Monday the 25th of May 2009.
    I advised I was and discussed the availability on the day of computer Visual Display Unit facilities etc.

    Thankyou for your inquiry
    Ian Rist

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  02/05/09  at  11:40 AM
  79. (74)
        anonymous ! therefore irrelevant ! Yawn !


    Posted by don davey  on  02/05/09  at  11:52 AM
  80. Rachel,cheshire,B*llSh*t detector, dr of snails,Lord Farquaad,Theresa and other pseudonyms that have tried to agitate me into saying something you may wish to know, may I advise you have been totally unsuccessful.
    I would also like to advise you that I have had experts try to unnerve me and they have also been unsuccessful.
    As I do not rate any of you as experts, I just suggest you go back to looking for fox shit, counting snails,having barbecues,playing computer games and generally consuming taxpayers money.
    I have become bored with your little games,and really your opinions don’t matter.
    Game over.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  02/05/09  at  11:58 AM
  81. Ian (#76), I have no interest in arranging a “meeting” as such.  I can however arrange an event where I walk up to you, tell you that I mean what I say about your drivel on this site, and walk away, but we must be very clear that this is all that will occur.

    Actually I understand Legislative Council is now streamed over the internet and I will be making enquiries to find out whether this includes said PAC enquiry.  Incidentally I have found the terms of reference online and its terms of reference are:

    (a) The operations of the Fox Eradication Taskforce;
    (b) The costs for fox eradication programs in each financial year of
    (c) The cost effectiveness of the fox eradication programs;
    (d) The methodology used to determine allocation of financial resources;
    (e) Measures used to determine the success of fox eradication;
    (f) Any other relevant issues.

    It doesn’t appear that your view that the presence of foxes in the state is a hoax will be high on their agenda although it might squeeze in under (f) if you’re very very lucky.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  02/05/09  at  04:01 PM
  82. Re #77, where I wrote “live kangaroo” in #66 I just meant to write “dried kangaroo” as per #64.  It was not a case of me misreading, but simply a case of me thinking one word and typing another.

    Your assertion that I “despise anyone who is not a scientist” amused me, but it was also melodramatic, unsubstantiated piffle. 

    That foxes are beautiful and intelligent creatures (which could also be said of feral cats) is beside the point.  There are also abundant globally, and there are many other places they can be beautiful and intelligent in. Here they are a major ecological threat and I support their eradication by whatever means will work.  The death of a few foxes through poisoning is nothing compared to the havoc these animals wreak on some other species when they are permitted to build up numbers in areas lacking natural curbs on their abundance.  That is why I find quibbling about whether given control methods are humane or not to be all a bit irrelevant and self-defeating, but that all goes to the heart of a general philosophical clash between welfarism and species conservation, in which I am on the side of the latter.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  02/05/09  at  04:42 PM
  83. Ian, the game was over long ago and you lost it; you just didn’t have the grace to concede.

    You actually seem to be nutty enough to believe that we are trying to agitate you into leaking something ahead of the PAC enquiry. 

    Looks like you’ll be easy to pick at the PAC enquiry; we’ll just look for the one with the tinfoil hat.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  02/05/09  at  06:18 PM
  84. An explosion of foxes?

    Originally two, now there are eight. Is this a new Big Bang theory or is Foxoff laced with nitro-glycerine.

    To be a danger they have to find each other and that could be difficult for so few in such a large area, and how many are there of each sex. More females than males? Are any of them gay? What does their DNA tell us? Have they found any father and son/mother and daughter relationships yet? As foxes are related to cats, rather then dogs, are they also related to quolls, and could somebody have made a case of mistaken identity?

    Well, I suppose all these fascinating questions will finally be answered if/when anyone actually catches a fox. Then on the other hand….. The show rolls on.

    Posted by Gerry Mander  on  02/05/09  at  08:19 PM
  85. You wish o dr of snails,you and your mates are like the turtle on its back at the high tide mark when it’s actually low tide…F****D.

    Good to see Ivan Dean back in. LOL Love it!

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  02/05/09  at  09:22 PM
  86. Ian, your mate Ivan’s not back in just yet; there’s this little thing called “preferences” to worry about, and they’ve been known to go against him in the past.  His lead’s so big he’ll probably hang on - we may know by tomorrow evening.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  02/05/09  at  11:31 PM
  87. Gerry Mander (Comment #87) - I too have wondered about the ‘presence’ of foxes without evidence of breeding of foxes (no natal dens found, no DNA evidence of relatedness between any fox scats given). I’ve been told the foxes are too cryptic to find and catch or shoot; I’ve been told the few that are here are too dispersed to perhaps to find each other.

    Even Minister Llewellyn asked me personally what I thought of the idea of releasing vasectomised male foxes in Tasmania with radio-collars to find out whether they’d find a mate? [Gay or straight, even Centrelink will consider couples a “de facto couple” after I July, 2009.]

    Uni-sex foxes in Tasmania now that’s a suggestion!

    But according to the DNA data on positive fox scats recovered in Tasmania, 3 of the 8 are deemed to be deposited by three different female foxes.

    The $1000 fox reward is still open under the conditions outlined.

    Posted by David Obendorf  on  03/05/09  at  09:25 AM
  88. Mister Rist people scared.  Mr Rist got plenty secret. Dump can of bean. Scammer wear hat no matter bean go all place.
    Call name no matter. PAC see fact.

    Posted by Phuk-Mae Pac  on  03/05/09  at  06:28 PM
  89. You are probably on the list Phuk-Mae Pac. See how much you laugh then. It is pretty cold in Risdon and what ever you do don’t drop the soap!

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  04/05/09  at  09:07 AM
  90. Hey ! hey, hey ! 
                  Rigy Bloody dig !  i saw a fox in the Brisbane street Mall !        and seein as it was one way street i tore around the block for a second “captain cook”  and sure enough there it was ! 

    whadayarekon said I ? 
      120 bills say’s she ! 

        120 ? jesus ! Ya gotta to be puttin me on! !   

            0.k ! say’s she ! that’ll be 10 bucks extra !

                        SIGH !

    Posted by don davey  on  04/05/09  at  12:20 PM
  91. Kevin (#44), I’m mildly amused at your statement (#88): “Ian, the game was over long ago and you lost it; you just didn’t have the grace to concede.”. 

    Seems a bit hypocritical given the outcome of our earlier debate on thylacines vs. 1080. It’s likely you’ll now write an entire essay in response. Have at it, but I’m just not interested in checkmating you twice on the exact same issue.

    Other than that, I hope all is well with you.

    Posted by David Alford  on  07/05/09  at  02:21 AM
  92. Hey Don, you made me laugh. Good one.  :-)

    Posted by David Alford  on  07/05/09  at  01:20 PM
  93. David, your assertion that you won that earlier debate is unsubstantiated tryhard twaddle.  As I pointed out above in #44 you were actually delivering checkmate to an unrelated and unskilled position you had set up on a completely different board, while throwing away your own pieces as fast as I could take them in the process.

    Your unsubstantiated assertion of hypocrisy, based on your delusional evaluation of our previous encounter, is just a lame attempt to throw your nonexistent weight as a debater around.  No need for a full essay in response to such feeble little pellets of drivel.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  09/05/09  at  12:01 AM
  94. Yet another thread ruined as it descends into cyber bullying. No need to name names.

    Posted by Gerry Mander  on  09/05/09  at  12:23 PM
  95. Kevin, I don’t consider myself a debater…just an interested party. I enjoy a good tussle now and then, but it was probably best you made your exit when you did as the whole issue had by then been over baked. Well, I guess that is better leaving the issue half baked.
    Take care, my friend.

    Posted by David Alford  on  09/05/09  at  03:52 PM
  96. (96
        Thanks David , glad you enjoyed my small attempt at lightening up what have become at times several spiteful exchanges

        I’m afraid however that your positive remarks upon anything that I may contribute may also have brought on the unhinged statements made to you by his Lordship , or the one and only “BLACK PRINCE” as he once wished to be referred as ! He has never been able to play his one up man ship game with me ! and it irritate’s the F———k out of him !  heh.heh, sorry about that! and Gerry ! as usual spot on.


    Posted by do davey  on  09/05/09  at  05:17 PM
  97. David, your idea that I am your friend is exactly as delusional as the idea that you made any point at my expense in our previous discussion, but I’m sure you realise that and were just saying “friend” to be a creep.

    As for the $1000 Fox Reward thread, there was no decision by me to stop but rather the discussion that I was interested in, and that following from it, had all dried up. 

    I asked Ian Rist some relevant questions in #262; he ignored them and instead resorted to a generic personal attack.  From that point most of the discussion was meta-debate and off-topic exchanges of pleasantries.  You and I continued discussing 1080/thylacine issues until I posted #277 at which point there were eight points in a row of off-topic abuse in my direction.  I debunked that drivel in #286.  Ian got back to something near the point in #292 and I responded, and there were no further responses to my comments; indeed within four posts the thread died down for a week and went back to its usual pattern of sporadic ranting (usually recycled) by Rist, Davey and Obendorf.

    So basically, the reason I stopped posting on the thread was simply that the chain of ongoing discussion following from my response to you in #181 had finally come to an end.  I am subscribed to that thread so I see whatever gets posted there, but refuting the same old dribble over and over again on an old thread probably not being much followed is rarely something I can be inspired to bother with, and I have only made a few posts to that thread since.

    “Gerry” (#98), if you’re going to make those hackneyed accusations you probably should name names and explain your delusional thinking, to give the targets a chance to defend themselves and avoid unjust suspicion being cast on others.  Most likely given your track record it will turn out to be a load of bulldust reflecting your biases and lack of comprehension skills.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  09/05/09  at  05:21 PM
  98. Do (#100), there is no need to play “one up man ship” [???] with you as the gap between us is so wide that it would trivialise it to even attempt such a contest.  And no, this doesn’t irritate me, although the debatable view that you are a member of the same species does cause me to doubt that that species has any real future.

    As for my comments, it was in fact Alford’s false (and genuinely unhinged, from any kind of debating reality at least) hypocrisy call in #94 that I was responding to. 

    Your claims about “black prince” are more of your insane conspiratorial babble that was already debunked on the $1000 Fox Reward thread (#262).  Incidentally, a $2000 reward I offered for anyone who could prove I have ever posted pseudonymously on this site (#270 of same thread) went unclaimed!

    The only possible source of your confusion I can think of, apart from post-traumatic insanity on his part, was a discussion where someone used a Princess Bride metaphor and claimed to be a Man in Black, and I suggested that I would most likely be better wardrobed for that role.

    Now, once again, let me remind you that you have failed in your commitment given on return to this site.  You said “I will only be posting from time to time, which will keep my detractors happy i feel sure!  and rest assured i will not be allowing myself to be sucked into the inane and unproductive personal trivia as before !”

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  09/05/09  at  06:15 PM
  99. Re (102)
              see guy’s ! it isn’t really very hard !  checkmate ! heh,heh,
                    wait for it !

    Posted by don davey  on  09/05/09  at  11:04 PM
  100. Kevin, oh don’t be silly. Ultimately, even the fox is the friend of mice and vice versa. We’re all in this soup together, after all.

    (Hmm, perhaps I should use a better example…lol.)

    Posted by David Alford  on  10/05/09  at  04:21 AM
  101. Don, I only wish the moderator would allow you to publish photos of your Fox sightings…we could use a little diversion, don’t you think?  Here’s a project that would rally support and it would be less wasteful that the cost of 1080 tonnage throughout
    the hinterlands.  :-)

    Posted by David Alford  on  10/05/09  at  04:27 AM
  102. ‘During breeding mates are found by calling.
    Dog foxes usually giving three short barks followed by a pause while they listen for any response.
    The vixens call is an eerie squall unlike any other animal.’

    If the fox squad is serious about catching foxes, then why not record and play these calls during the mating season in areas where they think there are foxes?
    It would be far more effective and a damned sight less dangerous then speading 1080 baits around hoping that only a fox would eat them.
    But maybe this is just too simplistic a solution?

    Posted by Gerry Mander  on  10/05/09  at  05:52 PM
  103. Precisely what are we all in together, David?  Are you aware that on account of a singularly awful 2006 song of the same name by Australian alleged singer-songwriter Ben Lee, anyone who uses any expression derived from the inane cliche “we’re all in this together” is an irredeemably dweebified forum-hippy dolt?  No, I suppose as a blow-in to the debate from the USA, you wouldn’t be.  Ah well, at least you know that now.  :)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  10/05/09  at  09:11 PM
  104. ahhhhhhhg ! shit (^%^%$## )! please stop it ! cant take any more ! and there i was finkin I was bein funny , carnt stop larfin ! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !


    Posted by don davey  on  10/05/09  at  10:59 PM
  105. “on his part” (#102) should read “on your part”, Don.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  11/05/09  at  12:54 PM
  106. Kevin, I wasn’t the one Asleep during science class…review what you were correctly taught and bravely act upon it. Just a suggestion.

    Posted by David Alford  on  11/05/09  at  04:20 PM
  107. Gerry, et al., in one of the thylacine videos I have there is a mysterious sound purported to be the call of the thylacine. It is actually the call of a red fox (“they couldn’t fool me. Ha!). That doesn’t mean the call was recorded in Tasmania, however.

    As you know, those recordings are easily obtainable and I’ve already applied them in my forays into the hinterland. So far no luck, but then I wasn’t paid very well, lol. At any rate, this is being done by others, to what extent is uncertain.

    Posted by David Alford  on  11/05/09  at  04:39 PM
  108. Barnaby,
            What you say is absolutely correct, why not indeed.
            i suspect alot of embarrassment at this time in Govt as i reckon someone coked this many moons back, convinced “whoever” that there was a problem ,so now when after all this time NOTHING has been forthcoming they are going have to explain just where all the god-damn money has gone whilst trying to wriggle out of just how they came the victims of such a gigantic con trick
            If it wasn’t so serious one would would have a huge laugh, but theres nothing funny about this amount of money with everything else in such a mess.
            On another issue,dealing with wasted revenue ! with all the money that is continually thrown at sporting fixtures the next time you get a chance to watch a local footy match ! and when i say local i mean any match of less significance than usual big three or four (Australia wide ) and you will find that when they ACCIDENTALLY allow the camera to pan to the backgrounds ,the grandstands are almost entirely empty !  but get this, you have to concentrate because on first impressions it appears that there are people because of the way the seating has been painted and arranged, now surely i’m not the only person to have noticed this, and if you are a diehard footy fan which i am not ! they are to busy watching the action to notice this anomaly.
            I don’t get it and would be very interested if anyone else has noticed this !

    Posted by don davey  on  11/05/09  at  06:01 PM
  109. David, your vacuous #110 both attacks my scientific understanding and my courage but with no evidence behind either attack, probably because there is none for you to find.  Falling asleep in science class ... hmmm, not many database matches for that one.  I did doze off briefly in the lecture part of a first-year geography prac once but continued taking notes for a few lines (albeit even less legibly than normal) while asleep, a very bizarre experience.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  12/05/09  at  03:54 PM
  110. Here and there in the backwaters of science or perhaps I should say natural history, I suppose some biologists still believe Homo sapiens stands aside from the rest of Nature’s tangled web…but, increasingly that outdated notion is crumbling at the foundations with every new discovery evidencing the interconnectedness of all life. You may not have liked the song, but how did you miss the message, Dr. Bonham?

    The interested reader may wonder where this is going and whether there is any relevance to the topic at hand. Indeed there is. It is our species extreme but unwarranted hubris which has brought us to the very edge of ecological disaster. Not just here in Tasmania, but to the far corners of the globe. Of course, it doesn’t stop there, as we are already beginning to junk up the Cosmos, at least in Earth’s orbit.

    Back to Tasmania, witness the disastrous forestry practices that has deeply divided Tasmania for years culminating in the ecological insanity of the pulp mill and logging of the Florentine Valley. The 1080 equivalent of chemical warfare is yet another example of man’s misjudgement, but there are many more from thylacine bounties to the pollution of lowland rivers by mine tailings, etc. etc.

    Kevin, I’m afraid you were hardly the only one asleep. Our species in general needs to wake up! Before it is really too late.

    P.S. In all fairness, you are not the one most deserving of my invectitude (if you will allow my neologism). At least I hope not. However, readers may wonder where your alignments really are.

    Posted by David Alford  on  13/05/09  at  02:27 PM
  111. David Alford in #114 is in his usual strawman-burning mode.  Far from me being asleep in basic science classes it appears he did not even get in the door of basic logic or even comprehension.  If he had paid attention he would know that I frequently criticise the spurious natural/artificial distinction.  But saying that elements affect each other is not the same as saying that all elements can, will, should or must all pull in the same direction.  Indeed our current ecosystems have been honed by millions of years of often anything but. 

    Amusingly, it’s Alford himself who is closer to the false dichotomy with his idea that doing as any other species tries to do places us at the “very edge of ecological disaster”.  There is a point that our problem is we’re just too good at it, but the factual basis for claims of imminent catastrophe is generally found wanting.

    If Alford really thinks the latest trivial and banal round of Ritual Forest Conflict over a few little coupes in the Florentine, or even the pulp mill that shows little sign of ever being built, is the culmination of a Tasmanian forestry “disaster” then really he should be devoting far more attention to his own nation, where there are people who, to my astonishment, are allowed to rip the tops off mountains and dump rubble in the valleys, in order to mine them for coal.  Now that is *real* ecological insanity; mountains don’t regenerate.  The poisoning of West Coast rivers here and the deliberate attempt to extirpate the thylacine were similarly awful here, but these were long ago, and nothing occurring *here* today is comparable.

    Frankly I think this Alford chap has a bad dose of the disease normally only seen from certain European (especially English) dabblers in Tasmanian issues - the propensity to lord it over the poor peripherals and ex-colonials and tell them they are not allowed to make money from exploiting their natural assets in certain ways, even though their homelands became wealthy by doing exactly that to a far greater and more damaging degree than Tasmania is even capable of.

    Calls to “wake up” are often seen in such debates.  They are substitutes for argument used to pretend that the reader is ignoring an oncoming disaster although the alarmist can’t substantiate that adequately.  Frankly David, such tactics only encourage the reader to ignore your tedious alarmism and read something else, or else they’ll really fall asleep!


    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  13/05/09  at  10:06 PM
  112. Kevin, after reading your puerile response, I have a hard time reconciling you were ever granted a Doctor of Philosophy. I doubt your graduate committee would have been impressed with your blatant anti-intellectualism. At one time a Ph.D. meant something.
    Obviously, no more. Oh well.

    Posted by David Alford  on  14/05/09  at  02:53 PM
  113. Alford in #116 has clearly run out of huff and puff, at least for the moment.  As with many insignificant and puny trolls, his post contains unsubstantiated attacks like “puerile” and “anti-intellectualism” that apply perfectly to his post but bear no relation to mine.

    His indifference reconciling the reality of my qualification with his deluded view of my contributions is entirely his own problem.  He lacks the ability to appreciate that people whose views differ from his own may nonetheless be at least as “intellectual” as him - and infinitely better at defending those views in debates.

    David, it is sad that you think opposition to the demolition of mountaintops in your nation is puerile and anti-intellectual.  However, I have been called worse things while standing up for the environment, so your insults will not sway me on that score.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  14/05/09  at  07:17 PM
  114. Kevin, you can attack the environmental wisedom or lack of it in the USA as much as you want and you’ll find I’m probably in complete agreement! LOL. But don’t fool yourself that leveling hilltops and worse doesn’t occur in Australia and/or by Australian companies. Ever hear of BHP and Rio Tinto? 

    Rather the anti-intellectualism you displayed was in attacking me for my country of origin and commenting as a nonNative Tasmanian. What’s next, argument based on race? Pathetic. And yes, you lower the status of Ph.Ds when you engage in such behavior.

    And don’t fool yourself that you stand up for the environment. You probably spend more time and energy getting dressed up for a Goth party.

    And we’re way off topic. C’ya.

    Posted by David Alford  on  15/05/09  at  04:42 AM
  115. David, my point is not that nothing similar has ever occurred in Australia when it comes to mining, but that this thing occurs on a massive scale in biodiverse regions of your home country, and here you are whining about miniscule episodes of logging and far-fetched threats to an implausibly still-extant animal on the other side of the globe.  Last I checked, the envirodoom movement with which your words so clearly identify you was into a slogan “think globally, act locally”.  Not “think globally, whine endlessly at something going on on the other side of the world when you could use the same time making a much bigger difference at home if you actually really gave a rat’s posterior in the first place.” 

    I am not attacking you for your country of origin at all; what I am doing is criticising you for foolishly wading into the environmental affairs of another area about which you are manifestly clueless, with a certain tone of core-periphery enviro-snobbery about your efforts to boot.  To conflate that with racism is just more of your cheapskate gutter-trolling rubbish.

    You are in no position to lecture me with bollocks about what does or doesn’t lower the status of a PhD given some of the pathetic personal attack tripe and strawman bashing you have dished out on these pages.  I don’t know if you even have a PhD, but if you do have one then you are clearly a hypocrite, and if you don’t then I couldn’t give a fig for your expectations anyway.  A PhD is awarded for a significant original contribution in a particular field of research, not for being a forum-hippy towards silly trolls like David Alford.

    And, since you ask, the average number of “Goth parties” (club nights actually) I attend is about seven or eight a year, and the average time it takes me to get dressed for each is rather less than five minutes.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  15/05/09  at  12:46 PM
  116. Aaaahh !
              i always reckoned ,    “too many

    quirks spoil the Goth”  and as for getting

    dressed in five minutes ?  I don,t believe him !

    I mean ,  fishnets ! pumps ! and then the eye

    lashes ,  nah ! sorry,  couldn’t be done


    Posted by Don Davey  on  15/05/09  at  03:35 PM
  117. Don, not everybody in the scene wears all that stuff.  I am usually a pretty basic jeans, obscure band t-shirt, jacket specimen of the genre.  Now and then I’ll add some kind of hair thingy or jewellery or badges, or round out the look with the black-dyed pelt of a freshly skinned Tasmanian fox (OK, I made the last bit up in a vague attempt to drag the thread back onto topic) but the myth that all g*ths spend hours in front of the mirror is exactly that, a myth.  I don’t blame you for not knowing that since you are from Launceston, which was one place we never got much traction even at the very modest heights of our subcultural successes in this state.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  15/05/09  at  04:27 PM
  118. Kevin, sorry but you’re repeating yourself & I’m pretty much an expat so your point is off target, anyway.

    To your last comments, I admit I don’t know much about the Goth scene. Can you explain exactly what you do in those parties? For example, what is your persona, maybe a Vampire?  I bet you’re ooky spooky! But, com’on, as Don suggests, maybe you’re fibbin’ how long it really takes you to get all “dressed up”?

    Posted by David Alford  on  15/05/09  at  05:37 PM
  119. Phhhhttttt!

    Where Mr. Ian Rist - he real man.
    Dr. Mr. Professor Mr Bonham and Mr other man boring!  Jibber Jabber Jibber Jabber

    Mr Donald Davey he real man too.  No jibber jabber.

    Has Mr Ian Rist put can beans on head of silly foxers yet.  Tell us!  They in prison yet? Smacky-bottom-come-here-girlfren

    Plse less jib jab more fox in hole.

    Posted by Phuk-Mae Pac  on  15/05/09  at  06:54 PM
  120. “Pretty much an expat”, David?  Twaddle; one is either an expat or one isn’t.  What you are is a tourist, albeit a repeat visitor.  We know this because you described yourself explicitly as a “tourist in Tasmania” in #28 of 

    In another thread you called yourself “a trout fisher who comes to Tasmania every year” (so, you benefit from a feral pest in our waterways while lecturing us against poisoning one on land) and in another post you say you’ve spent your “holidays Tasmania [sic] for several years now”. 

    That you have been here a number of times in no way invalidates my perception of you as a clueless blow-in to environmental debate in this state, nor does it make my comments in any way wide of the mark.  You’re so much of a tourist in this debate that you even use the overseas term “clear cutting” when in this state it’s nearly always called “clearfelling” (with or without a space in the middle.)

    So with your “expat” exaggeration it looks like we can add intellectual dishonesty to the charge sheet of the dupe who was trying to lecture me on the obligations of the holder of a PhD.  :)

    Goth club nights are just like any other nightclub nights really, except for the selection of music and the propensity of *some* to dress up in elaborate costumes.  Nothing all that bizarre occurs, mostly just people dancing, drinking, socialising, listening to music and so on.  The vampire thing is almost a separate scene and is regarded as pretty tacky by many mature goths.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  15/05/09  at  10:53 PM
  121. PMP, Ian is likely busy and/or sickened by the spectacle Kevin is making and may be wondering why-o-why any on us have wasted time even responding to Goth dude. A question, I am asking myself, frankly.

    Posted by David Alford  on  16/05/09  at  03:29 AM
  122. The spectacle *I* am making, David Alford? 

    Your form on this thread: false accounts of our previous debate, incorrectly calling me hypocritical on account of same, groundlessly attacking my scientific understanding, spreading melodramatic ecodoom twaddle, slurring my credentials while hypocritically and falsely calling me anti-intellectual, falsely playing the racism card and finally trumping up a claim of quasi-expat status when your previous posts state clearly that you’re just a repeat tourist.  We can now add trying to shift the blame for the confrontation to the other party, as well as your numerous displays of vacuous inanity along the way.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  16/05/09  at  01:42 PM
  123. Kevin, it seems as though any level of complexity throws you off. Trust there are tens of thousands of expats who primarily have tourist visas. Same-O for your concern over word usage which naturally reflects my country of origin just as my accent does. You have now bored me to other venues. I’ll let other readers here suffer your next round of blah blahs. C’ya.

    Posted by David Alford  on  16/05/09  at  02:18 PM
  124. David, if persistently having your nonsense debunked has indeed “bored” you elsewhere then please don’t let the door hit you on your way out.  It’s amusing you make this nonsensical claim that complexity throws *me* off when it was your own simplistic misunderstanding of my comments about thylacines that was the root of the problems between us in the first place.  However your latest excuse is just another unconvincing attempt to spin your way out of being caught out making inconsistent comments about your connection to this state at different times.  Whether a genuine expat would hold a tourist visa is totally beside the point.  They would still not be likely to call themself a “tourist”.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  16/05/09  at  06:03 PM
  125. I know that iv’e been party to it ! but the last 14 comments have been all about his nibs’ and nothing at all about foxes, so his ego must be just about to explode, so let me suggest that you all, “stand well back from your screens”


    Posted by Don Davey  on  16/05/09  at  06:14 PM
  126. Phuc you seem plenty worried…you not naughty man put fox on side of road are you? You KNOW something Phuc? Maybe you come PAC.
    Me not tip can of bean Phuc… you do plenty good job yourselves.
    Must go, plenty busy on PAC Phuc.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  16/05/09  at  07:14 PM
  127. Kevin, I’ll reply one last time and then you’ll have to find a new antagonist to beat the drums with.

    Even though I have long term commitments here, I purposely used the word “tourist” to make the polite point I’m spending $$$ in Tasmania as a visitor, but those funds could just as easily be spent elsewhere such as in New Zealand or wherever.

    Now my contributions to the local economy may be relatively small, but multiplied by tens of thousands of other “tourists”, it adds up. Indeed, even a certain amount of your own monies can probably be traced back to us “tourists”.

    Tourism is, I believe, the largest industry in Tasmania and the powers that be should know by now visitors to Tassie have a choice and most are not willing to spend $$$ if the negatives out weigh the positives, esp. in this economy. Not to mince words, if Tasmania becomes too polluted and biological or environmentally degraded to be a top destination.

    It’s probably unlikely, but what would happen if Quantas decided it was no longer profitable to keep Hobart or Launceston on their routes?  If visitors just stopped coming or if the rate of visitation significantly dereased?

    Personally, I have a high regard for Tasmania and most of the people I’ve met here have been wonderful. I wouldn’t waste my time and $$$ if it was a wreck of a place. It’s not, to the contrary!

    In Greek tragedy, it’s not that big a deal if an average person self destructs, rather the ultimate tragedy is when the sublime and most pure ends badly. Much about Tasmania has those qualities, and it would be the ultimate tragedy if this “last great place” ends up being one large polluted tree plantation.

    I don’t mean to take the “argument of extremes”, but many do feel there is significant risk for Tasmania at this precise moment in her history and I happen to agree with those sentiments. Yes, the same-o and even worse is happening in the USA, Europe, Asia, elsewhere so excuse me for my love affair with Tasmania.

    Kevin, I admire your malacological interests and so forth and I know in biological communications you can be very civil. However, I have to say at times you appear to be or want to be or may even feel you need to be a stooge for the forest industry. I guess everyone has their hierarchy of needs, I’m sorry if that is the situation.

    Alternatively, I hold out the chance you may just like to argue the contrary position - or perhaps a bit of both. I just don’t have time to be overly concerned with an endless amount of tit for tat.

    I will add it’s a good thing we don’t think exactly alike or one of us would be unnecessary. Although a venomous response is anticipated, on that note, cheers.

    Posted by David Alford  on  17/05/09  at  09:18 PM
  128. Ah yes, the old “I’m off ... cya ... oh, I’m back” routine. 

    So David, you call yourself different things depending on what it suits you to call yourself in each argument.  If you were once a resident here for a substantial period then you shouldn’t call yourself a tourist; “frequently returning expat” would be fine and would make exactly the same point (actually it would make it stronger as it would indicate you were not just a once-off visitor).  If you have never been a resident then you are not an expat and shouldn’t pretend to expat-like status no matter how often you have been here as a tourist.  Evidently you keep coming back even though the forestry practices you so disapprove of have been in place for decades and your level of dislike about them appears unabated, so there has to be some doubt about the idea that you would “just as easily” spend the money elsewhere.  Indeed, you say you’re leaving a thread and then return to it, so what you say about whether you might take your money elsewhere shouldn’t be taken too seriously either.

    Likewise, the claim that disgust at forestry practices scares tourists away from Tasmania in droves in a way that threatens the Tasmanian tourist industry is an alarmist and overhyped one for which no convincing evidence has been produced.  Sure, there is a tiny minority who feel strongly that way, and it may well be that my pockets have been indirectly lined by those tourists’ contributions to the tune of, oh, about a dollar.  I am more than happy to give that dollar back (they can work out how to split it up between them) on the condition that all those tourists shut up about Tasmanian environmental issues until they have rehabilitated their homelands to the same overall environmental condition (or better) as our state.

    Of course the idea that Tasmania could end up as one big plantation is ludicrous given how much of the state is already reserved, for starters. 

    Your “forest industry stooge” stuff is lazy twaddle, and the idea that I’m just being a contrarian misses the mark as well.  Regular readers would be aware that I do not seek to write whole articles extolling the benefits of the forestry industry.  What I do is criticise inept attacks on it, and inept contributions on scientific and environmental themes in general, by posters of a green inclination.  I am driven by opposition to “environmentalist” claptrap generally, not by any particular desire to support or promote any particular industry.  If I was driven by the latter I would be writing gushy articles about the good that such an industry does (and it’s not hard to find positives in the contribution of just about any industry), but rather, as you can see, my posts on these issues appear only in reaction to nonsense posted by others.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  18/05/09  at  03:33 PM
  129. Hmmm.  I was considering going along to the Fox PAC today for some cheap entertainment.  Apparently I should have organised this further in advance.  When I rang up at about 11:30 nobody could tell me whether today’s sessions were public or private or how I might go about viewing them - the mildly Kafka-esque reason for this being that everybody who could tell me was inside the hearing.  Furthermore no-one was able to return my call in time for me to drop down and check out Mr Rist in action (assuming he was on at the time suggested).  I checked to see whether it might be being shown on the net but only found that the Legislative Council internet feed said the Council would next sit on Thursday 21 May (yes, four days ago).  Applying the logical(?) principles(?) of a body of doctrine known after its three main founders as the “Deastendorf Theory”, I am caused to doubt that any PAC enquiries exist in Tasmania and to suspect that the claimed existence of PAC enquiries is merely a front for some kind of diversion of public resources or debate.  :)

    (Seriously, my fault for being slack, I’ll have to check out the transcripts of evidence when they appear online instead.)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  25/05/09  at  03:45 PM
  130. They wouldn’t have been let you in the door bonham,you have nothing to offer. You are a nobody.
    The only place you can get a free squark is here on TT.
    PAC inquiries don’t exist… you are a bloody fool.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  26/05/09  at  06:41 PM
  131. On the contrary, rist, I was only interested in attending as a member of the public (not to table evidence as I am sure that is being well and truly taken care of by professionals in the field) and I have been advised that the hearing was public and that had I had my act together in time I would have been free to attend and would indeed have been let in the door.  Furthermore I have made arrangements that may lead to me attending future sessions, depending on whether the committee decides that it is willing to tell people what it is up to!

    As for your comment “PAC inquiries don’t exist… you are a bloody fool”, I can add inability to comprehend what was quite obviously a joke (*clearly* denoted by me as such by the :) and the following “seriously”) to your long list of deficits as a poster.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  26/05/09  at  10:52 PM
  132. I am addressing this comment to the moderator publicly as I feel this Kevin Bonham person is damaging the credibility of this site. Who is this Kevin Bonham character? What are his credentials? I have been interested in the fox situation in Tasmania for some time. However every fox thread seems to be sabotaged by Kevin Bonham,what is this persons problem?
    He seems to get some sort of morbid satisfaction out of attacking people he presumes that he is superior to.

    Posted by Ken Johnson  on  27/05/09  at  06:24 PM
  133. Ken (#136), you may think that debating a point raised in a thread and then fending off personal attacks constitutes “sabotage” and evidence of a “problem” but I must respectfully disagree.  For the record, there have been at least 73 threads about foxes on this site so far (a ridiculously large number for one issue and nearly all started by the same two posters) and of these I have posted on just 21 - one of those because my name had been twice taken in vain by other posters before I had even commented!

    Some may think that the existence of actual debate on this site harms its credibility.  Actually it is the main thing preventing this site from being little but a pointless clearing-house for activist propaganda and the ravings of the tinfoil-hat brigades.  Furthermore, I don’t *presume* that I’m a better debater than anyone in particular; rather, I frequently end up reluctantly concluding that that’s the case on the basis of the rather sad evidence provided by those opposite.

    But I do realise that that doesn’t answer your questions about my identity and qualifications, and I understand that there is a burning curiosity about these things among so many here.  It just so happens that at this very moment I am working on a file that will answer such questions comprehensively!  You have been warned ...  ;)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  27/05/09  at  10:26 PM
  134. I didn’t hear a bang. Any explosive evidence released from this PAC inquiry?

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  29/05/09  at  12:19 PM
  135. Re # 38 Sure was… and I did see the Paddy Wagon heading towards Macquarie street.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  29/05/09  at  04:32 PM
  136. Yes Tony, 

    He huffed and he puffed and he swore they were going down in a flaming heap….

    Never has so much been said by one man to so many with so little substance.

    (it was a complete embarassment).

    Posted by huffnpuff  on  29/05/09  at  09:51 PM
  137. Ok. I was not trying to deliberately ‘stir the possum’, enough of that, (too much), has been done already on this particular thread.
    I am genuinely interested.
    Has there been any significant developments resulting from PAC?

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  30/05/09  at  08:50 AM
  138. Tony (#141) my understanding is that it will be some time before PAC finishes their hearings (they have more hearing days to come, which had not yet been scheduled at the time of the previous one) and then it will be some time before results are released.  Some previous PAC enquiries have taken a few months just to complete the hearings.  So it may be a while before the “findings” (I use that word in quotes in case the “findings” represent subjective views and not just facts as is often the case with such enquiries) are released.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  30/05/09  at  02:19 PM
  139. Fox task force disbanded !  Jesus ! isn’t it just typical ! they believe that the whole issue will go away by this action, and that “NO ONE” is EVER going to be held accountable for the wasted millions over these last 10 years.

        Let’s hope that when and if this motley! corrupt! bunch of loser’s are turfed out on their collective arse’s, that the incoming lot will hold an inquiry !

    Posted by don davey  on  30/05/09  at  02:24 PM
  140. (137)
        We have been warned !

    Christ ! I’m so excited, I’m nearly falling out of me chair in anticipation !  I reckon he’s been made the “ Grand Poobah “ of “Gothsville”.


    Posted by don davey  on  30/05/09  at  02:30 PM
  141. Re # 140 huffpufter. I haven’t finished yet,have to go back…couldn’t fit all the hoaxers and fabricators in the time allowed. I have only started on the good stuff. Cleared up a lot,but there is a lot more to come…huffpoofter,you probably will still get a knock on the door.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  30/05/09  at  05:07 PM
  142. Re #140 again.I have a good idea huffpufter…why don’t you tell us who you are,instead of hiding under cowardly pseudonyms and I will tell you if you have anything to worry about.
    One thing I can assure you. The truth always comes out…always does.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  30/05/09  at  05:53 PM
  143. The fox cash fund is running dry…maybe it’s time we created another crisis.
    What if we were to get an anonymous letter from a visiting cyclist from Sweden that claimed they had seen a Dingoe crossing the Richmond Road?
    Immediate response should be to form a new Dingoe task force justified on the precautionary principle.
    Should be worth at least 20 million dollars.
    We could immediately test all dog scats to see if there is any Dingoe DNA. Bait the whole island anyway,at least another 300,000 baits. Make sure we get the last Quolls and Devils.
    There is a quid in this for everyone again.
    The Thylacine, the Fox, the Devil, Macquarie Island cats and rabbits… we haven’t got much left to recycle.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  31/05/09  at  08:58 AM
  144. Re #140 again. Unless you are Alan Johnston of the Fox Eradication Branch Mr huffpufter you don’t know what you are talking about. Alan Johnston was the only person that stayed in the room (other than committee members) for a very small amount of my evidence,even he was asked to leave the room when the session went into closed in camera evidence.
    So unless you are he I would say you are burdened with the complete embarassment again of telling lies.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  31/05/09  at  01:24 PM
  145. 147 - what’s this all about?
    Hope you are providing more than this at your PAC.
    Just silly.

    Posted by Hazealdean  on  31/05/09  at  07:59 PM
  146. Re #149. Sorry fake hazealdean I now only respond to real people. New policy.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  31/05/09  at  09:36 PM
  147. Reading through the Foxpop newsletters this a.m. I am amazed that we have had already two fox vocalisations recorded in the fox evidence stream this year. One at Lenah Valley and one at Campania. Will this be the new ‘flavour of the month’ fox evidence?
    Scats are wearing a bit thin…all that scat and still no fox!
    I also note in issue 58 that Mr Mooney had threatened to resign at the end of June 2009…no - we are saved, he is now in THE FULL time position as ACTING HEAD of the Wildlife Monitoring and Management Section (Wildlife Management Branch) as from the 13th of May 2009.

    Anyone that is interested go to:

    One thousand,nine hundred and forty nine foxout reports of fox sightings since 2002.

    All this “evidence” and still no fox.

    But then again we have had 4,500 Thylacine sightings since 1936 and still no Thylacine.

    A man called Goebbels ( minister of propaganda) would have been proud of this lot.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  02/06/09  at  11:06 AM
  148. Good new policy not to respond to anonymous posters Ian.  Excellent.

    What’s this “poofter” stuff?  Bit rich from you.

    Anyone that disagrees with you here cops abuse because you can’t actually cope with argument.

    The fox calls have been on the DPIW website for ages - have you only just looked?

    Nick Mooney is a highly respected wildlife biologist with an international reputation.  He isn’t some troll banging the same old abuse drum - he actually has done something for wildlife in this State.

    Of course, he is only one of the many thousands included in your conspiracy. 

    You have said on here the 2006 report by Saunders, Dickman and Harris was “fair and balanced”.  It recommended the current program, which doesn’t include catching foxes or looking for carcasses.  The evidence is evidence - you said you’d discredit it all at the PAC, but you didn’t.

    Posted by huffnpuff  on  02/06/09  at  08:15 PM
  149. I haven’t finished at the PAC yet by a long way,I have been called back.
    Years of deceit and lies takes a lot of time to cover and my records are excellent.
    Recent vocalisations it said,your major problem is you can’t even organise a scam properly.
    I am amazed at the pain you people go through protecting your good jobs and topping up your super after most of you have failed in the other parts of dads army.
    If you were so sure of the fox problem you wouldn’t be out there trying to shove it down everyones throat.
    Most Tasmanians think it a joke anyway,the only support is those on the gravy train and if I were you I would be making the best of it while you can.
    I always laugh at what one of your old DPIW(E)managers once said to me “the longer the bit of rope gets the more it hurts when it stops”

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  02/06/09  at  09:39 PM
  150. Yes, gay and Nazi epithets are the sign of someone with no substance.

    Worse than no substnace, the guy is simply so hung up about the whole thing he needs to abuse anyone and everyone.

    Posted by Hazealdean  on  02/06/09  at  09:45 PM
  151. Huffnpuff comment 140 & 152 unless you and others such as hazealdean comment 149 are prepared to use your proper names on this site your comments have no credibility at all. As I have said before,if anything they only degrade the site.
    Who is this Mooney biologist you refer to? I cannot find his qualifications anywhere - locally or internationally.
    I have been interested in this fox thread for some time and I would say as a mainlander that does know a lot about foxes I personally think Mr Rist certainly makes many excellent points,especially the fact that your fox force has not recovered or photographed from your own pursuits, a single fox.
    In my opinion after all these years of baiting and hunting the fox this is just not possible if there were even the smallest number of foxes here.
    I went along to one of your fox presentations recently and you all sounded like people desperate to protect your jobs and life-styles rather than being serious about killing foxes.

    Posted by Ken Johnson  on  02/06/09  at  10:27 PM
  152. Excerpts from the Tasmanian Auditor-General’s Special Report No 78 - Management of Threatened Species - March 2009]

    “If the European red fox becomes established in Tasmania, the resulting impact on native wildlife and agriculture would be, according to experts, catastrophic.”

    “In 2008-09 TWO PROJECTS absorbed THREE-QUARTERS of the consolidated funds of the Resource Management & Conservation branch of DPIW: fox eradication (42%) and the Devil Facial Tumour Disease (33%).”

    The resepective story-lines are: An explosion of foxes AND the imminent extinction of the Tasmanian devil.

    SHOW US THE MONEY, before it’s too late….please.

    Posted by David Obendorf  on  02/06/09  at  11:32 PM
  153. Thanks Ken Johnstone for your support,at least there are some civil people on this thread.
    No credibility,you are exactly right. They never have had any credibility,lies,lies and more lies.
    But they have been caught out and are panicking their little empire is about to crumble.
    I also have no respect for gutless little people with no spine at all attacking myself and others under pseudonyms.
    Weak,faceless little individuals that have no substance at all.
    I will now go out of way to highlight the lies and the perpetrators.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  03/06/09  at  08:55 AM
  154. David (#156) - firstly, what’s your point?  Are you saying that the expense on the two projects is disproportionate compared to other projects?  Are you saying that the expense on the two projects is disproportionate compared to each other? Are you saying it’s the expense is fine but the results are a problem?  The intention of your comment is not clear.

    Secondly, you’ve had over a month to come up with a reply to my rebuttal of the “article” that started this thread at #2.  I’ll take the absence of comment as an admission that I was correct.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  03/06/09  at  01:28 PM
  155. I say Ristee (151#)about no fox body, you’re missing the point lad. No trap, no fox old chap. The thing you don’t seem to understand Ristee is that those blighter foxes don’t like a Shakespearean death scene where all and sundry wax lyrical over their poisoned corpes. They didn’t call those Gerry holes during the war , fox holes for nothing.
    The fellows from HQ have the good oil on this and have the troops poisioning only. No traps whatsoever. Heavans sake man, how do you catch a fox with out a trap?
    Now be a good fellow then eh? Have your self a nice toddie and get yourself back to PAC and keep their spirits up.

    Posted by Col H J W Eddington-Smythe( Ret.)  on  03/06/09  at  09:46 PM
  156. Mr Rist , Phuc-Mai think you make big hit with PAC and many changes for bad fox mans no like. Phuc-Mai very grateful.
    Phuc-Mai think no problem foxes anyway. Bettong just rat, no matter.

    Posted by Phuk-Mai PAC  on  03/06/09  at  10:01 PM
  157. I guess when poisoned in Tasmania foxes evaporate.
    Yes that has to be it. Plenty of 1080 macropod carcasses but NO FOX. That is why the 1080 code of practice states all carcasses must be recovered.
    You had better read your own battle plan again Colonel Blithering idiot. No wonder the colonials stuck it up ya.
    Foxpops LOL clearly refers to trapping sites.

    As for Phuc…well at least you will be able to be the new Benny Hill. LOL LOL LOL

    Colonel while we are on Shakesperean quotes,have you heard the one “the end is nigh”

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  04/06/09  at  08:58 AM
  158. Looks like Ian’s “new policy” of not responding to anons lasted less than a week.  Predictable.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  04/06/09  at  03:51 PM
  159. Just a thought…with all the fuss lately over Treasury leaks, I wonder how the Premier and Treasurer feel about Government employees and associates posting comments on this site under easily traceable pseudonyms?
    We are about to find out!

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  04/06/09  at  05:02 PM
  160. Actually now that I know who these late night posters are…I am ENJOYING IT.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  04/06/09  at  09:16 PM
  161. Re #159 for the blind,deaf,illiterate and shell shocked Colonel I suggest you get someone to read out the latest edition (62) of the foxpops newsletters to you regarding trapping foxes in urban Burnie.
    Also note vocalisations at Natone and Moriarty…strange I didn’t ever hearing mating foxes vocalising until July on the mainland.
    Yet I suppose these Tasmanian foxes are very different because they certainly cannot be shot,trapped,poisoned or even photographed.

    Posted by Ian Rist  on  05/06/09  at  12:39 PM





Remember my personal information

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.